comet_read_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and the args disclose default behavior for links and truncation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect guarantees or behavior on empty/unloaded pages.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. Every sentence contributes information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and all parameters. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning usage boundaries or alternatives, but these are mainly covered by the usage-guidelines gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters: selector is a CSS selector for specific content, include_links controls href inclusion, and max_length caps returned characters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Read the text content of the current page in Comet.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from visual/capture siblings like comet_screenshot, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly read-oriented siblings such as comet_search or comet_evaluate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The Args section only explains parameter usage, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.